How much structure is needed? The case of the Persian VP Pegah - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

How much structure is needed? The case of the Persian VP Pegah Faghiri & Pollet Samvelian Université Sorbonne Nouvelle & CNRS {pegah.faghiri,pollet.samvelian}@univ-paris3.fr HeadLex 2016, Warsaw Poland 1 / 50

Outline Goals and Background Persian syntax: an overview The Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) Assessing the TOPH A flat structure for the Persian VP Conclusions 2 / 50

Goals and Background ◮ We present a series of quantitative studies, including corpus-based and experimental studies, to tease apart between available views of the VP in Persian. ◮ Persian is an SOV language with mixed head direction (e.g. head-initial in NP , PP and CP), flexible word order and null pronouns. ◮ The prevailing view of the Persian VP initially suggested in generative studies assumes a hierarchical structure with two object positions, mainly motivated by the existence of Differential Object Marking in Persian. ◮ Our data do not support this hierarchical view, while they are compatible with a flat structure view of the VP . 3 / 50

Outline Goals and Background Persian syntax: an overview Word order, etc. Nominal determination Differential Object Marking Different realizations of the DO The Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) The Two Object Position Hypothesis Arguments in favor of the hierarchical view Assessing the TOPH Canonical word order in ditransitive constructions Semantic Fusion with the Verb Scope Ambiguity Binding Relations Licensing Parasitic Gaps Coordination Conclusion on the TOPH A flat structure for the Persian VP Conclusions 4 / 50

An overview of Persian syntactic properties ◮ SOV with free word order in the clausal domain : (1) a. Puy¯ an Sepide=r¯ a did Puyan Sepideh= DOM see. PST .3 SG ‘Puyan saw Sepideh.’ b. Sepide=r¯ a Puy¯ an did (OSV) c. Puy¯ an did Sepide=r¯ a (SVO) d. Sepide=r¯ a did Puy¯ an (OVS) e. did Puy¯ an Sepide=r¯ a (VSO) did Sepide=r¯ a Puy¯ f. an (VOS) ◮ Null arguments (2) a. Puy¯ an Sepide=r¯ a did ? ‘Did Puyan see Sepideh?’ b. na na-did No NEG -voir. PST .3 SG ‘No, he did’t see her’ 5 / 50

Nominal determination ◮ No overt marker for definiteness ex. (in) ket¯ ab ‘(This)/the book’ ◮ Indefiniteness is overtly marked by: ◮ the enclitic = i , ex. ket¯ ab=i ‘a book’ ◮ the cardinal yek , ex. yek ket¯ ab ‘a book’ ◮ both, ex. yek ket¯ ab=i ‘a book’ ◮ A (singular) noun carrying no (formal) determination or quantification can either correspond to a definite NP or to a bare noun (N.B. in the object position, only the latter is possible). ◮ Bare nouns are not specified for number and can have a mass reading, ex. ket¯ ab ‘a book/some books’; they can be either generic/kind-level or existential. 6 / 50

Differential Object Marking Persian displays Differential Object Marking (DOM) realized with the enclitic =r¯ a (colloquial =(r)o) : ◮ Definite DOs are always marked: (3) Sara xarguš*(=r¯ a) did Sara rabbit= DOM saw ‘Sara saw the rabbit.’ ◮ However, definiteness in not the only feature triggering DOM (e.g. specificity, topicality, etc.) 7 / 50

Differential Object Marking ◮ DOM is considered as a complex phenomenon and cannot be captured by a binary feature (e.g. Lazard, 1982; Meunier and Samvelian, 1997; Ghomeshi, 1997; Lazard et al., 2006) ◮ Yet, in most of the works discussed here DOM is claimed to be triggered by a binary [ ± specific] feature (e.g. Karimi, 2003, 2005) ◮ specific DO –> marked with = r¯ a ◮ non-specific DO –> unmarked 8 / 50

Different realizations of the DO Bare DOs Indefinite or quantified (unmarked) DOs Marked DOs 9 / 50

Different realizations of the DO Bare DOs with ou without modifiers (4) (man) xarguš did-am I rabbit saw-1 SG ‘I saw a rabbit/rabbits.’ (5) xarguš=e sefid did-am rabbit= EZ white saw-1 SG ‘I saw a white rabbit/white rabbits.’ 10 / 50

Different realizations of the DO Indefinite or quantified (unmarked) DOs (6) (yek) xarguš=i did-am (a) rabbit= INDEF saw-1 SG ‘I saw a rabbit.’ (7) yek xarguš did-am a rabbit= INDEF saw-1 SG ‘I saw a rabbit.’ (8) cand ˇ xarguš did-am some rabbit= INDEF saw-1 SG ‘I saw a few rabbits.’ 11 / 50

Different realizations of the DO Marked DOs (9) xarguš=r¯ a did-am rabbit= DOM saw-1 SG ‘I saw the rabbit.’ (10) (yek) xarguš=i=r¯ a did-am ... (a) rabbit= INDEF = DOM saw-1 SG ‘I saw a (particular) rabbit...’ 12 / 50

Outline Goals and Background Persian syntax: an overview Word order, etc. Nominal determination Differential Object Marking Different realizations of the DO The Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) The Two Object Position Hypothesis Arguments in favor of the hierarchical view Assessing the TOPH Canonical word order in ditransitive constructions Semantic Fusion with the Verb Scope Ambiguity Binding Relations Licensing Parasitic Gaps Coordination Conclusion on the TOPH A flat structure for the Persian VP Conclusions 13 / 50

“Two Object Position Hypothesis” (TOPH) I ◮ Unmarked DOs have been assumed to be VP internal while r¯ a -marked DOs are VP external (cf. Diesing, 1992) ◮ Marked (definite or indefinite) and unmarked (bare or indefinite) DOs occur in two different syntactic positions (at spell out), whether base-generated, ex. (11), or as a result of a movement, ex. (12). (Karimi, 1990; Browning and Karimi, 1994; Ghomeshi, 1997; Karimi, 2005; Ganjavi, 2007; Modarresi, 2014) (11) a. [ VP DP [+Specific] [ V ′ PP V]] [ VP [ V ′ PP [ V ′ DP [-Specific] V]]] Karimi (2003, p. 105) b. 14 / 50

“Two Object Position Hypothesis” (TOPH) II (12) CP C ′ Spec C TP Spec T ′ T vP v ′ Spec PredP v Pred ′ PP Objet Pred [ ± Specific ] Karimi (2005, p. 108) 15 / 50

Arguments in favor of the Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) R¯ a -marked and unmarked DOs are claimed to display several syntactic and semantic asymmetries. These asymmetries involve: ◮ The relative order with respect to the IO ◮ Semantic fusion with the verb ◮ Scope ambiguity ◮ Binding relations ◮ Licensing parasitic gaps ◮ Coordinate structures 16 / 50

Arguments in favor of the Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) Claim 1: Canonical Word order Theoretical studies and (some) grammars have assumed that in ditransitive constructions, r¯ a -marked DOs precede while unmarked DOs (bare or indefinite) follow the IO (Karimi, 1994; Browning and Karimi, 1994; Mahootian, 1997; Rasekhmahand, 2004; Ganjavi, 2007; Windfuhr and Perry, 2009; Roberts et al., 2009, among others): (13) a. (S) OD=r¯ a OI V b. (S) OI OD V 17 / 50

Arguments in favor of the Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) Claim 2: Semantic fusion with the verb ◮ R¯ a -marked DOs are considered as (independent) participants of the event described by the verb and hence semantically autonomous. ◮ Unmarked DOs are assumed to be a part of the predicate, and semantically non-autonomous. According to Karimi (2003) this explains why unmarked DOs, contrary to marked DOs, cannot: 1. take wide scope (and hence cannot trigger scope ambiguity) 2. enter binding relations 3. license parasitic gaps 18 / 50

Arguments in favor of the Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) Claim 3: Coordinate constructions Marked and unmarked DOs cannot appear together in a coordination. 19 / 50

Outline Goals and Background Persian syntax: an overview Word order, etc. Nominal determination Differential Object Marking Different realizations of the DO The Two Object Position Hypothesis (TOPH) The Two Object Position Hypothesis Arguments in favor of the hierarchical view Assessing the TOPH Canonical word order in ditransitive constructions Semantic Fusion with the Verb Coordination Conclusion on the TOPH A flat structure for the Persian VP Conclusions 20 / 50

Word order Preferences in ditransitive sentences Claim 1: Canonical Word order In the neutral/canonical word order r¯ a -marked DOs precede while unmarked DOs follow the IO in ditransitive constructions: [ IO bar¯ m¯ (14) a. Kimea aqlab a a] [ DO (ye) še’r] mi-xun-e Kimea often for us a poem IPFV -read-3 SG ‘It is often the case that Kimea reads poems/a poem for us.’ b. Kimea aqlab [ DO ye še’r=o] [ IO bar¯ a m¯ a] Kimea often a poem= DOM for us mi-xun-e IPFV -read-3 SG ‘It is often the case that Kimea reads a (particular) poem for us.’ (Karimi, 2003) 21 / 50

Word order Preferences in ditransitive sentences Objection Our recent corpus-based and experimental date have invalidated this generalization (Faghiri & Samvelian, 2014; Faghiri et al., 2014; Faghiri et al., forthcoming). Word order preferences in ditransitive sentences follow a cline rather than being dichotomous 22 / 50

Word order Preferences in ditransitive sentences ◮ While marked DOs do have a strong preference for the DO-IO-V order, only bare single-word unmarked DOs have a comparable preference for the reverse order. ◮ Indefinite (unmarked) DOs group with marked DOs in preferring the DO-IO-V order overall (but they show a less stronger preference for this position) ◮ Bare modified DOs, i.e., bare DOs carrying modifiers, have a significantly less stronger preference for the IO-DO-V. 23 / 50